Re: [gnso-travel-dt] Travel drafting team - some ideas after the conference call

[Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Olga for doing this.

At this stage, I have to admit I would rather push for an alternate
solution. I don¹t see how funding people who are no longer councillors can
be supported by the ICANN community. Further, there are logistical problems
to this. Some constituencies won¹t have voted until very late in the day and
so we won¹t have the list of which ex-councillors should be funded until
then. And by then, it will probably be too late to add rooms and plane
tickets to the bookings already made by ICANN.

I think we should stop chasing the funding option for ex-councillors and
just concentrate on finding possible ways for them to help their successors.

If the group agrees, this would therefore stop being a Travel DT problem and
become an issue to be dealt with at Council or SG level.

Thanks,

Stéphane


Le 15/08/09 21:43, « Olga Cavalli » <olgac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> Hi,
> I hope you are doing well, I just finished listening to the conference call
> recording. As per Avri´s request I am sending some initial notes and ideas to
> share with you and see how to move forward.
> 
> First let me summarize some comments made during the conference call:
> 
> 1- Reasons for allocating additional funding for former councilors:
> 
> * As this is a particular meeting with changes in structure, continuity is
> pertinent for a small number of retiring councilors.
> * Could be good helping incoming councillors with the assistance of former
> councilors. 
> * It is very helpful having more than one representative of a constituency in
> a face to face ICANN meeting.
> 
> 2- Other ideas
> 
> * New councilors could participate in conference calls prior to Seoul, if we
> know who they are.
> * Could be good to have a clear understanding of how many would need this
> funding. 
> * There should be balance between limited funds and the need for
> participation. 
> * Constituencies usually deal with changes at the end of the year and these
> changes should not be a problem.
> 
> 3- Reasons for not  allocating additional funds on former councilors attending
> meeting:
> 
> * This is not a special situation for spending money on coordination.
> 
> I also used Rob´s document as a basis for a preliminary analysis of how many
> former councilors would need funding for Seoul.
> 
> In reviewing the list I found 10 possible councilors that may not be present
> in the next meeting,( I excluded Noncom Appointees as their participation
> follows the normal noncom appointing rules, please tell me if this is a right
> assumption)
> 
> * Commercial Stakeholder group: 6 six
> * Registries: 1 one
> * Registrars: 2 two
> * NCUC: 1 one
> 
> I am attaching the file I drafted for reference.
> 
> Some ideas on how to move forward:
> 
> It could be convenient to determine how many former councilors should need
> funding for Seoul.
> 
> One idea could be to ask each constituency / stakeholder group about this,
> specially taking in consideration that
> 
>  "constituencies usually deal with changes at the end of the year and these
> changes should not be a problem"
> 
> Once we have a clearer idea of how many people should need extra funding ,then
> we can ask ICANN Staff if this funding is feasible.
> 
> 
> 
> Looking forward to receiving your comments.
> 
> Best regards, have a nice weekend.
> 
> Olga
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>